Partner with Mono-Color

[Guardman]

This is something I've been thinking about off and on for a while, but I've been wondering if there should be a Partner with Mono-Color type partners to give mono-color and mono-brown commanders access to a second color. This is more of a thought-experiment than anything else as I still don't know whether or not it would be a good thing. Basically it would be a mechanic that states:

Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other commander has one or fewer color identities and does not share a color identity with CARDNAME.)

Pros/Cons (personal opinion/stream of consciousness)

Pros:

1. It would give mono-red, mono-white, and mono-brown commanders access to a first/second color. I've played a bunch of mono-red commander decks and dabbled around with mono-white and mono-brown and each of them has very big holes that black, green, and blue just don't.
2. That's not to say blue, black, and green mono-colored decks don't have holes. They're just not as glaring. And this mechanic would help as well.
3. A lot of decks are two plus, and at least as far as my experience, at least half are three plus color decks. I would say maybe 10% of decks in my experience are mono-colored. And there doesn't seem to be big diversity in mono-colored commanders, compared to multi-colored commanders. So in theory it should open up new commanders without completely warping commander.
4. I feel like all three points are repeating themselves, basically saying that it would allow a lot more mono-colored/brown commanders to be played.

Cons:

1. Might break something...
2. Mono-colored/mono-brown decks would probably disappear for the most part.
3. Something, something, sanctity of the format (As a person who loves chaos {and a believer of hybrid mana in mono-colored decks}, I am the wrong person to ask about sanctity of the format, but I know for some people something like this could undermine it).
4. Related to con 2. The Lutri, the Spellchaser problem where every mono-deck should run a "Mono-Partner".
5. Any commander with mono-partner would probably have to be weak and generic, which could or could not be a demerit depending on your point of view.

There are probably a few more pros and cons, but these are the ones off the top of my head. I didn't include might make a few mono-commanders too powerful since any new card or mechanic has the ability to do that.

[darrenhabib]

Maybe the way to tackle this is take a page out of the companion book and use deck building restrictions to allow the inclusion of the "Mono-Partner" commanders.
This way you'll stop the problem of people just including them no matter what.

You could have one for each color, but have some sort of deck building restriction in order to be able to include it as your commander.
I think you want to take away the best of what those colors might offer as well to avoid auto including.

For example the blue one might be that your deck can't include instants. This may seem like a too heavy restriction, but you want to avoid every mono colored deck from jamming the blue one just to have counterspell interaction. Trust me the game would degenerate into this if you didn't go the full distance of restricting builds.



Black might be that you can't have cards that search your library.

Green might be that you can't have creatures that tap for mana. So in fact might be that you can't have activated abilities on creatures.

White might be that you can't include sorceries.

Red might be that you can't can't include artifacts.

[Treamayne]

I don't know that it needs to be that complex. I would just like a set of Mono-colored C16 style partners.

Though I would also like to see one or more generals with an ability such as:
"This deck may contain cards as long as the color identity includes <C>"
or
"This deck may use <C> hybrid mana as if it's CI is only <C>"

*(not edited for proper templating)

Not a fan of any of the "partners with" pairs so far.

[Mookie]

Hmmmm.... ideologically, I don't have a huge problem with this. Due to the nature of the format, mono-colored decks are inherently weaker than multicolored decks, and helping them out isn't a bad thing. However, similar to the Lutri problem, I would be concerned if these cards were free to include, and powering up the mono-colored commanders that do happen be high-powered despite their limitations isn't necessarily a good thing. If there are no restrictions, the cards become auto-includes... while if the restrictions are too harsh, then that significantly limits the number of decks that can be helped out (and if there are any decks that can freely include the restriction, then it sort of defeats the purpose).

A simple solution I'd suggest is just giving the cards 'Eminence: Your opening hand contains one less card'. Probably still worth doing for many commanders, but it's also a pretty significant drawback that will at least make people think twice.

If Companion ever ends up being reworked to make the cards less inherently broken, I'd look at that as another potential implementation, since it functions similarly to adding a second commander.

As a side note, I'm actually a fan of the 'partners with' commanders. Unfortunately, the lower power level (and semi-obscurity) means they don't see as much play.

[Guardman]

I guess there is probably another two questions that needs to be asked:

• Is it alright if there are no mono-color/mono-brown decks?
• Is it alright if every mono-color/mono-brown deck has a mono-partner?

I think they are similar, but different questions. And the reason I ask them is I have my doubts a companion style restriction would work. If too restrictive it defeats the purpose of having them, namely helping mono-commanders. If too loose then what is the point of the restriction in the first place. And if, for example, the white mono-partner is the only one that has the right mix of power and restriction to see play for example then all the mechanic did was make mono-white decks worse.

But if it is yes to both of the above questions then there are a lot of ways to make mono-partners that add only a little power outside of a second color. Hell, I remember when Legends commanders would be run only because they had the right mix of colors. And I really like how Mookie put it about mono-colored decks:

Due to the nature of the format, mono-colored decks are inherently weaker than multicolored decks, and helping them out isn't a bad thing.

Another thing would be for there to be, for example, five mono-partners for each color, so that there is good diversity even within each color.

An eminence style one less card restriction is interesting. It would allow for more powerful mono-partners. And it would be something to test.

Finally on Partners, I like the "partners with" for the most part. I do have a few issues with two of the *cough*Krav, the Unredeemed *cough*Regna, the Redeemer *cough* since they seem to create obnoxious decks, but the rest are fun and I enjoy playing against them.

[Treamayne]

Yeah, my dislike of the "partner with" so far is mostly due to how invested I am in building Tribal. There just aren't any pairs I care to run. For example, I don't run Pir in an Illusion deck (so it is mono-U Toothy).

I can at least hope that we get some future "Partner" cards that don't require a specific pair so that I can find a match I might want to work with. For example, I would love to see a RW Warrior with Partner (to go with Reyhan, Last of the Abzan) or a B Knight with Partner (to go with Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa).

<on topic>

Sorry I seem to have misunderstood your idea of having only the new Mono-Partner have partner and combine with a General that does not have partner. I thought you mean having mono-color partners that partner with other mono-colored partner generals.

[bobthefunny]

My wish list for expanding the partner commander would be something like:

• Partners with Rebels
• Partners with Enchantments
• Partners with Creatures with power 2 or less

etc.

I think this could reasonably expand the "partner with" mechanic to create interesting pairing options, without overly opening up everything to being blanket partnered. As written right now, even partner with would need both cards to have partner - which I feel is the right direction to go. Although it might be tempting to make something like "Partner with Red Color Identity" and allow it to partner with any red commander - we then end up with almost a repeat Lutri situation - in most situations there would be no reason not to partner it up. I haven't seen a single partner deck that chooses to only play one half of the partner situation.

The issue with full on "partner" is that as the list gets expanded, it could be difficult to reasonably balance all of the interactions - but by putting some limitations on it, you could create a broadened list that still has interesting deck building constraints.

Whether they still have the built in tutor that "partners with" has would be an interesting consideration for design/power, which could go either way. On one side, it could be said that the partner with only grants a tutor if the partnered object is a specific name - or you could leave the tutor half in there, and then the "Partners with Creatures with power 2 or less" would be like having a legendary Imperial Recruiter. The Commander might not even need any other abilities then beyond that.

[Guardman]

I sort of get the feeling that of people are expecting a Mono-Partner with abilities like Vial Smasher the Fierce or Lurrus of the Dream-Den. I don't think that's feasible for a myriad of reasons. A lot of which have been mentioned. I am talking more about a Mono-Partner like Ramirez DePietro, a vanilla or french-vanilla commander.

Something like:

Holly, Friend to All 3gg
Legendary Creature - Hound
Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other commander has one or fewer color identities and does not share a color identity with Holly, Friend to All.)
Trample
4/4

Technically it is a free card and such, but it isn't a commander that is ever going to be played for its Non-Mono-Partner abilities. It might not ever even be cast except in desperation. It is an overcosted french-vanilla. It is going to be played solely for the fact it is Mono-Partner that gives access to green cards.

Could there be Mono-Partners with abilities. Possibly, but adding extra abilities means there might also need to be companion like restrictions, which undermine the whole point of Mono-Partners, which is to give mono-commanders access to a second/first color. And that sort of gets the whole thought experiment off the rails, and is better as something to discuss further down the line.

[bobthefunny]

I sort of get the feeling that of people are expecting a Mono-Partner with abilities like Vial Smasher the Fierce or Lurrus of the Dream-Den. I don't think that's feasible for a myriad of reasons. A lot of which have been mentioned. I am talking more about a Mono-Partner like Ramirez DePietro, a vanilla or french-vanilla commander.

Something like:

Holly, Friend to All 3gg
Legendary Creature - Hound
Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other commander has one or fewer color identities and does not share a color identity with Holly, Friend to All.)
Trample
4/4

Technically it is a free card and such, but it isn't a commander that is ever going to be played for its Non-Mono-Partner abilities. It might not ever even be cast except in desperation. It is an overcosted french-vanilla. It is going to be played solely for the fact it is Mono-Partner that gives access to green cards.

Could there be Mono-Partners with abilities. Possibly, but adding extra abilities means there might also need to be companion like restrictions, which undermine the whole point of Mono-Partners, which is to give mono-commanders access to a second/first color. And that sort of gets the whole thought experiment off the rails, and is better as something to discuss further down the line.

I get that, but let me counter that point:

Let's say I want to make a White deck... say... Heliod, God of the Sun. Typically, I would be forced into mono-white, with a 99 card deck. But now that Holly exists, even if I never play it, I could instead have a Green ramp, Gaea's Cradle, and all the populate cards in this deck.

After Holly exists - why would anyone, ever play a mono-W deck again (other than just flavor reasons/stubbornness)? It would practically become a "If you want to play a mono-color commander, you will want to add this card in order to gain ramp."

Now, much in my defense of Lutri - this IS the format where people will build sub-par for flavor. People will still make mono-color decks, just to have mono-color decks... but the big question on almost any mono-color creation would then be... "why?"

[Guardman]

I sort of get the feeling that of people are expecting a Mono-Partner with abilities like Vial Smasher the Fierce or Lurrus of the Dream-Den. I don't think that's feasible for a myriad of reasons. A lot of which have been mentioned. I am talking more about a Mono-Partner like Ramirez DePietro, a vanilla or french-vanilla commander.

Something like:

Holly, Friend to All 3gg
Legendary Creature - Hound
Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other commander has one or fewer color identities and does not share a color identity with Holly, Friend to All.)
Trample
4/4

Technically it is a free card and such, but it isn't a commander that is ever going to be played for its Non-Mono-Partner abilities. It might not ever even be cast except in desperation. It is an overcosted french-vanilla. It is going to be played solely for the fact it is Mono-Partner that gives access to green cards.

Could there be Mono-Partners with abilities. Possibly, but adding extra abilities means there might also need to be companion like restrictions, which undermine the whole point of Mono-Partners, which is to give mono-commanders access to a second/first color. And that sort of gets the whole thought experiment off the rails, and is better as something to discuss further down the line.

I get that, but let me counter that point:

Let's say I want to make a White deck... say... Heliod, God of the Sun. Typically, I would be forced into mono-white, with a 99 card deck. But now that Holly exists, even if I never play it, I could instead have a Green ramp, Gaea's Cradle, and all the populate cards in this deck.

After Holly exists - why would anyone, ever play a mono-W deck again (other than just flavor reasons/stubbornness)? It would practically become a "If you want to play a mono-color commander, you will want to add this card in order to gain ramp."

Now, much in my defense of Lutri - this IS the format where people will build sub-par for flavor. People will still make mono-color decks, just to have mono-color decks... but the big question on almost any mono-color creation would then be... "why?"

Ah... okay. I think we are talking past each other a bit.

I am saying that mono-color/mono-brown decks are under-powered and overly-restrictive compared to other decks in the format. This causes a bunch of fun commanders to not be used due being not two+ colors. So I am suggesting Mono-Partners like Holly as a way to fix this problem. I don't think there is much disagreement that mono-colored decks would no longer be played (outside of flavor reasons), but I think the question is, is the death of mono-colored decks acceptable and living with the "Lutri-Ubiquity Problem" acceptable to fix the under-power of mono-colored/mono-brown decks in general.

[Inkeyes22]

The trade off for playing an "under-powered" color is that you avoid color screw. Now in a slower game you have the opportunity to draw out of color screw, sometimes. I have definitely played games were I was stuck at 2 lands until turn 8, and was largely ignored because of that, then suddenly I started casting spells and caught up to my opponents who had worn each other out trading blows.

I will say Mono-W and Mono-R are probably the most needing, so making the U/R/G ones more powerful than overcosted french vanillia makes sense, but a:

1UU
Drawgo, the Drake
Legendary Creature - Drake
Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other commander has one or fewer color identities and does not share a color identity with Holly, Friend to All.)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, draw a card.
Flying
1/1

Would probably be pretty powerful. No?

[bobthefunny]

Ok, now THAT is an interesting discussion to have.

I think I have to disagree with you on the viability of mono-colored decks. I've built everything except mono-U, and several of each, and each one has remained rather well positioned in my group. (I do play in a lower-powered group though). Some have even been quite powerful in their own right, or among the more powerful decks I was running at the time (especially black and green).

Mono-color can be very interesting to build though, and while it certainly can be weaker than multi-color pairs, I think there would be something lost in essentially eliminating mono-color decks.

[Treamayne]

I am saying that mono-color/mono-brown decks are under-powered and overly-restrictive compared to other decks in the format. This causes a bunch of fun commanders to not be used due being not two+ colors.

This sounds to me like a possible Meta problem. If the General is compelling enough to a player, they will play it if it is 0,1, or 2 colors. If the meta is avoiding a Generals because they are < 2 colors, then the players in the meta probably need to have a discussion about expectations and preferences.

I have many mono decks (and my Karn, Silver Golem Tribal is one of my favorites) and have seen and played against many more. I've even seen mono color decks dominate metas (such as when Omnath, Locus of Mana was new, everywhere, and quite strong in casual).

I have completed the 27 deck challenge (if not the 32, because few of the 4 color options intrigue me) and currently have multiples of all of the mono color decks.

Which commanders, precisely, do you avoid because it is Mono-color?

[Yatsufusa]

Ah... okay. I think we are talking past each other a bit.

I am saying that mono-color/mono-brown decks are under-powered and overly-restrictive compared to other decks in the format. This causes a bunch of fun commanders to not be used due being not two+ colors. So I am suggesting Mono-Partners like Holly as a way to fix this problem. I don't think there is much disagreement that mono-colored decks would no longer be played (outside of flavor reasons), but I think the question is, is the death of mono-colored decks acceptable and living with the "Lutri-Ubiquity Problem" acceptable to fix the under-power of mono-colored/mono-brown decks in general.

It's "ubiquitous" because it simply covers all mono-colored/colorless Commanders. As pointed out by many here, there are many interesting/powerful mono/colorless commanders people already play and this essentially is a free color addition. Yes, there is a opportunity cost compared to companions (and even then it does technically thin the deck by 1 while at it), but adding a whole color is such a huge benefit for that cost.

Mono/Colorless does indeed suffer from a percentage glut of under-played Commanders compared to multicolored, but you can't just elevate the entire group to multicolor with such a generic requirement, that'll just end mono-colored.

In fact, I'd rather give Mono-Colored the incentive to stay mono-colored by providing partners that encourage mono-colored.

Holly, Friend to All 3GG
Legendary Creature - Hound
Mono-Partner (You can have two commanders if your other Commander has one or fewer color identities and shares a color identity with Holly, Friend to All.)
Trample
Other Commanders you control get +2/+2 and have Trample.
4/4

Even then it needs to be carefully balanced to "favor" weaker Commanders over stronger ones. We don't want the red one to grant damage doubling and make Purphy much more popular than everyone else, so it'll probably be along the lines of a straightforward +3/+0 and first strike than anything overly creative.

[Mimicvat]

Was going to post that exact same suggestion. Why would we use mono-partner to crap on the concept of mono decks, when it could be used to reward mono decks. I play a fair few mono decks and they are definitely lacking compared to the multicolour ones, both in power and things they can do. I feel currently the only reasons to play them are to capitalize on a very strong general or because "muh mono decks" (thats why I play them!)

I'd like to see maybe 3 available for each colour, providing a typically weaker effect or a stronger one with a companion style restriction. Turn Krenko into Krenko (no partner, no restrictions), Krenko (a haste enabler partner, prevents 1 drops), Krenko (a one use flashback partner, no instants), or Krenko (a tribe enabling partner, no creatures out of tribe) quadriples our options for the same general.

(just used random abilities and restrictions there)

When you can play four different Krenkos or four different Heliods, it doesn't matter so much that %$#% like Chulane exists. With regards to pure power level and 'breaking the format', remember the damn thing is already well broken and the author of the format says the secret is simply for players 'not to break it'

[Guardman]

Most of my decks are mono-colored (mostly mono-red) and I've played far more mono-colored decks than two+ colored decks. So the in general underpower aspect of mono-colored decks is something that is near and dear to my heart. Yes, mono-colored decks can win and they can be powerful, but they either have a way to shore-up a color's weakness (i.e. Etali, Primal Storm) or have such strong synergy within their color that they can ignore their mono-colored weakness (i.e. Ezuri, Renegade Leader or K'rrik, Son of Yawgmoth). But they are the exceptions, not the rule.

Mono-partner is maybe, or more likely maybe not, the answer. But my whole point in wanting to discuss this is there is a problem with mono-decks being inherently weaker. I've seen bad (but fun) commanders win solely because they have the color-identities to shore up their weaknesses. Fun mono-commanders don't have that luxury. Unless they fit the two criteria above, they just have an inherent weakness that is hard to overcome. And I know winning isn't everything, especially in commander. But if you win only one out of every twenty games with your deck, no matter how much you love your deck, it starts to wear on you.

Having a monored-partner work with only a monored commander is also an interesting idea. One I do like. But it's also one that I sort of worry wouldn't cause more mono-commanders to be played, but would only cause the mono-commanders that were already played to become stronger. And my reasoning for that is the biggest problem with mono-commanders is not their strengths, but their weaknesses, and giving them a second monored commander, for example, probably would do little to make their weaknesses less pronounced.

Finally about talking to my group about the meta. My group is too large and in flux for that to be feasible. There are around twenty regulars and that number doubles if you include semi-regulars, which doesn't even include the random people that come in for whatever reason.

[MonoRedMage]

I think this is an interesting idea. The problem is that there's then not enough incentive to ever play a monocolor deck. Everyone would just be all partners all the time. I would like to have some means to add colors to a mono commander, though.